HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 938/2022 IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17026/2016 Shri Hari Ram Son Of Shri Bajranglal Gurjar, R/o Gudda Anandpura Post, Rajwas Tehsil Niwai District Tonk. ----Non Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department National Highway, Tonk. 2. Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, National High Ways Niwai District, Tonk. ----Petitioner/Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tushar Pareek Mr. H.V.Nandwana For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yash Joshi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Judgment 17/09/2025 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the workman") against the order dated 30.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the workman filed a claim petition before the learned Labour Court stating therein that he has worked with the respondent-Department (hereinafter referred to as "the employer") from 01.01.1989 to 30.12.1993, however the employer terminated his services without assigning any reason. The employer filed a reply to the said claim petition and submitted that the workman himself left his job. The Learned Labour Court vide award dated 22.08.2016 held that the (2 of 4) [SAW-938/2022] termination of the services of the workman from 30.12.1993 is illegal and the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with full back wages. 3. Being aggrieved by the award dated 22.08.2016 passed by the learned Labour Court, the employer filed a writ petition before the learned Single judge which has been partly allowed directing the employer that in lieu of reinstatement of the workman with full back wages, to pay an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- to him vide order dated 30.03.2022. 4. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 30.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, this appeal has been filed by the appellant-workman. 5. Learned counsel for the workman submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in granting lumpsum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in favour of the workman in lieu of his reinstatement with full back wages. Counsel further submitted that workman is entitled for reinstatement in services with full back wages as held by the learned Labour Court. 6. Counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja Vs. Kutchh District Panchayat reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1284 and another judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Gopal & Ors. reported in 2015 SCC Online Raj 8083. 7. Learned counsel for the employer has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the workman and submitted that the workman has raised the dispute after a delay of 11 years and the said fact was duly considered by the learned Single Judge, (3 of 4) [SAW-938/2022] therefore the learned Single Judge has rightly awarded lumpsum amount of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-to the workman in lieu of his reinstatement. Counsel prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Dubey Vs. M.P.P.K.V.V.Co.Ltd. & Anr. arising from SLP(Civil) Nos. 20902/2024) in para 7 & 9 held as under:- 7. On 06.09.2024, this Court had issued notice in the matters limited to the question of quantum of compensation awarded by the High Court as it agreed with the observation of the High Court that in every case where termination is found to be illegal, the grant of reinstatement cannot be applied mechanically. Where such a termination is found illegal because of a procedural defect such as in violation of Section 25F of ID Act, this Court has consistently taken a view that in lieu of reinstatement the grant of monetary compensation shall meet the ends of justice. 9. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the matters, we deem it fit to enhance the compensation granted to the appellants by the High Court. We hold that the appellants would be entitled to enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 1.5 lakhs per year for the period they have worked and in case, they have worked for a part of the year, then the amount of compensation is to be calculated at the same rate to be applied on a pro-rata basis. The following table represents the period of service rendered by each of the appellant and accordingly, the amount of compensation each of them shall be entitled to in terms of the above directions: Diary No. Appellant’s name Month of joining Month of commence ment of regular service Month of termination Period of service Amount of compensatio n 34425/24 Amit Kumar Dubey May, 2008 August, 2008 June, 2011 3 years 2 months Rs. 4,75,000 34400/24 Anil Kumar Choudhary June, 2009 November, 2009 March, 2011 1 year 10 months Rs. 2,75,000 34401/24 Prakash Premi December, 2006 March, 2007 June, 2011 4 years 7 months Rs. 6,87,500 34420/24 Balram Ahirwar July, 2008 October, 2008 June, 2011 3 years Rs. 4,50,000 (4 of 4) [SAW-938/2022] 34720/24 Amar Singh Thakur July, 2008 October, 2008 June, 2011 3 years Rs. 4,50,000 24986/2024 Devendra Kumar Shukla January, 2004 April, 2004 July, 2011 7 years 7 months Rs. 11,37,500 34404/2024 Abhishek Chouksey April, 2008 July, 2008 June, 2011 3 years 3 months Rs. 4,87, 500 34419/2024 Sunil Kumar Mishra March, 2008 May, 2008 June, 2011 3 years 4 months Rs. 5,00,000 34412/2024 Deepchandr a Rohit April, 2008 July, 2008 June, 2011 3 years 3 months Rs. 4,87, 500 34721/2024 Nilesh Kumar Pandey February, 2008 April, 2008 June, 2011 3 years 5 months Rs. 5,12,500 9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and also considering the fact that as per record admittedly, the workman has worked with the employer for a period of five years and the workman has raised the industrial dispute before the learned Labour Court after a delay of 11 years, therefore, in our considered view the workman is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/- in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amit Kumar Dubey (Supra) in lieu of the reinstatement. 11. In that view of the matter, the respondents are directed to pay Rs.7,50,000/-(seven lacs fifty thousand only) in total to the workman in lieu of reinstatement as full and final settlement. It is made clear that if any amount already paid to the workman by Department in compliance of the order passed by learned Single Judge shall be adjusted. Compliance of this order be made within two months. 12. This appeal is accordingly disposed of. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Anu /91